The more technological of our readers may be aware of a brouhaha involving a website named Reddit. Reddit is best known, among the general population, for conducting structured question-and-answer sessions called Ask Me Anything (AMA), in which subjects respond to questions posted by Reddit users. The subjects of an AMA may range from the mundane (a trash man) to extremely high profile politicians, including President Obama. One Reddit employee, Victoria Taylor, was largely responsible for organizing and facilitating AMAs. She was fired in early July, and the resulting firestorm offers many lessons in what not to do when terminating a high profile employee.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released its proposed rule today that would broaden federal overtime pay regulations by raising the minimum salary threshold to $50,440 per year in order qualify for an exemption from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

To help understand what this means, below are answers to some questions you might have:

Marijuana is back in the news here in Delaware. Our state’s first Compassion Center is set to open later this month and legislation decriminalizing the sacred herb has been signed into law by Governor Jack Markell.

Delaware is by no means unique-it is part of a national trend towards decriminalization and even legalization occurring at the state level across the nation. However, as far as the federal government is concerned, marijuana remains illegal. Essentially, America is becoming a veritable patchwork quilt of differing, and inconsistent approaches-a situation that is creating headaches for employers, particularly those with national or multi-state operations, striving for consistency and uniformity in their drug policies.

Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, an eligible employee can take up to 12 weeks of protected leave for his or her own “serious health condition.” A “serious health condition” is defined by Department of Labor’s regulations as one “that involves inpatient care … or continuing treatment by a health care provider.” While many FMLA cases have focused on the meaning of “continuing treatment,” the definition of “inpatient care” has seen little review. A recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Delaware, recently focused on the issue.

Jeff Bonkowski worked for Oberg Industries as a wirecut operator and machinist. During a meeting with his supervisors on November 14, 2011, Bonkowski began to experience shortness of breath. His supervisors gave him permission to go home and he clocked out at 5:18 p.m. Shortly after 11 p.m., Bonkowski’s wife drove him to the hospital. Although he arrived at the hospital before midnight, he was not admitted into the hospital until shortly after midnight on November 15th. As we will see, these few minutes would be very important.

A bill pending in the Delaware legislature would expand the state’s anti-discrimination statute. House Bill 4 would prohibit discrimination on the basis of domestic violence, sexual offense, or stalking. If passed, the bill would have important implications for Delaware employers. Here’s what you need to know.

Which Employees Would Be Protected?

If adopted, the bill would prohibit employers from discriminating against employees because the employee was a victim of domestic violence. There are several scenarios where the implications of the law would be significant.

At our recent Annual Seminar, we discussed, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., an action involving alleged religious discrimination in connection with a refusal to hire that was then pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Attendees at the seminar will recall that the case involved an applicant for employment at Abercrombie who was turned down based on the Company’s “look policy,” because she wore a head scarf. Although the interview for this position did not involve any discussion of whether the applicant wore the scarf for religious reasons, and/or whether she would require an accommodation to allow her to wear the scarf while at work, the EEOC investigation established that the company’s representatives believed that the applicant was wearing the scarf for religious reasons and refused to hire her on that basis.

On June 1, 2015, as we predicted, the Court issued its Opinion finding that the employer had indeed violated Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination. Significantly, the Court ruled that actual knowledge of the employee’s need for a religious accommodation is not required. Instead, the Court found that the test is whether the employer’s decision was, in fact, motivated by illegal discrimination under Title VII.

At our Annual Employment Law Seminar last week, I spoke about the “Facebook Privacy” bill that was then pending in Delaware’s House of Representatives. The bill passed the House on later that day and is now headed to the Senate. For those of you who weren’t in attendance last week, here’s a brief recap of the proposed law.

The stated purpose of HB 109 is to protect individuals’ privacy in their personal social media accounts. Generally speaking, HB 109 would prohibit employers from requiring or requesting that an employee or applicant give the employer access to their personal social-media accounts-either by giving up their passwords or by logging in and letting the employer take a look (also known as “shoulder surfing”).

As we all know, though, with any law, the devil is in the details. And there are, not surprisingly, a few devilish details. For example. . .

In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Supreme Court interpreted the language of the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which requires that employers treat pregnant employees in the same manner as other individuals who are similarly limited in their abilities. Among the Court’s conclusions is that a policy that provides job-related accommodations to those who are injured on the job and those who have disabilities governed by the Americans with Disabilities Act may also have to be extended to pregnant employees with physical restrictions. The decision opens a lot of questions, but Delaware employers may have a leg up in compliance!

The Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor created a lot of uncertainty in the area of federal employment benefits. Because the federal government’s definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman was held to be unconstitutional, the decision left open the question of when same-sex couples were eligible for spousal benefits in a variety of contexts. In a move that is sure to simplify issues for multi-state employers, the Department of Labor is taking steps to clarify that issue under the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

The FMLA

The FMLA is a federal law providing unpaid leave to employees who have worked for a company for at least twelve months, and who worked at least 1,250 hours in the calendar year preceding the request for leave. Leave may be taken for a variety of reasons, including to care for a spouse with a serious health condition. Thus, a key consideration in determining eligibility for FMLA leave is whether the person for whom you intend to care is a “spouse” under applicable law. The term “spouse” used to be defined by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). However, DOMA’s definition of marriage was declared to be unconstitutional under the Windsor decision.

A party’s “right to privacy” in the context of social media is the subject for numerous motions in civil litigation. The scenario goes like this: Plaintiff sues defendant, alleging injuries. Defendants seeks discovery of Plaintiff’s social-media content, such as photos, posts, and comments, in the hopes of disproving liability and/or damages. Plaintiff claims right to privacy in social-media content. Court must decide.

Because these cases are so fact specific, it can be difficult to extract a single principle or set of guidelines from their holdings. But a recent case from an appellate court in Florida is a terrific example of the basic balancing act.

In Nucci v. Target Corp., the plaintiff claimed to have suffered physical injuries while shopping at a Target store. Target sought to discover photographs of the plaintiff from her Facebook account going back two years before the incident through the present. Target claimed that the photos would go to the quality of the plaintiff’s life before and after the accident to determine the extent of her loss.

Contact Us

Delaware Employment Law Blog ("Blog") is intended for informational purposes only and does not contain any legal advice. The authors of the Blog are attorneys in the law firm of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, and the views expressed by one or more of the authors, including comments posted by registered visitors, solely reflect the opinions of those authors and not those of the firm or its clients. The publication of and posting to the Blog does not create an attorney-client relationship and the authors assume no liability for the dissemination of attorney-client or confidential information posted on the Blog by registered or unauthorized visitors. The Blog is not intended to be advertising of legal services or any other service. The authors assume no responsibility for inaccuracies.

The authors reserve the right to remove any posted content. Content that is illegal, obscene, defamatory, threatening, infringing of intellectual property rights, invasive of privacy, or otherwise injurious or objectionable will be removed.